LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:I would welcome LBird to join the Party and take up the fight for socialism with folk who he can still debate and discuss with as comrades-in-arms …if he can't join, we and he should still recognise one another as fellow-workers seeking the same end…the end of capitalism…and regardless of the polarisation of these debates, we are all on the same wavelength politically if not philosophically.
Whilst I acknowledge the comradely tone of your post, alan, I've become less sure as time passes that we are 'seeking the same end'.I'm not simply seeking 'the end of capitalism' (as a negative, of what must be destroyed), but also seeking 'the creation of socialism' (as a positive, of what must be built).Years of debates with tories, liberals, anarchists, trotskyists, greens, managers, teachers, academics, has taught me to ask pithy questions which get to the nub of what someone really stands for.And the killer question about workers' democracy (which is what I mean by 'socialism') is 'who or what controls the production of social ideas?'.And by 'ideas' I mean all academic production, including mathematics, physics, logic, meaning, understanding, philosophy, etc., etc.This question always exposes, for example, the Leninists. If they agree with me, I ask when are we removing the central committee. Because by 'we', I don't mean the 'party organisation', but 'the membership'. It soon becomes clear that the Leninists are paying lip service to 'workers' democracy', and that they really want 'democratic centralism'. This is a phony 'democracy', which allow an elite to produce the ideas, policies, culture, structures of the party, not the membership.It must be obvious that I've employed the same method with the SPGB.When asked 'who' will control the production of maths and physics under (the SPGB version of) 'socialism', there is massed bafflement at the question. The simple answer by the SPGB is 'the elite that have always controlled maths and physics!'. The implication is that the elite have done such a good job in the last 350 years, so why change a perfectly good working formula, and let those uneducated, lazy, drunken, scruffs in the working class get their grubby hands on the shining edifice of perfection that is 'science'.No mention of the socio-historical orgins of that 'science', of course. Or its interests, purposes, theories, methods and practices of production.Surely it's clear to you, alan, that I'm the only one who ever mentions terms like 'socio-historical', and gives dates, names, events from hundreds of years ago, to the modern day. Descartes, Galilleo, Bacon, Comenius, Newton, 1660, the English Revolution, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Lenin, 1905 and 1915 with Einstein, Bohr, Labriola, Lukacs, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Born, Korsch, Pannekoek, Fleck, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend… I don't know about you, but I'm losing the will to live.And what do my opponents, who will not have democracy in the means of production (and by 'means', they mean physical things, like brick and mortar, instruments, tangible 'stuff', not 'ideas') look to for their basis?Engels' bloody 'materialism'. That's it. 19th century, half-arsed ignorant bullshit, based on a positivism that even the bourgeoisie have jettisoned. And the SPGB is supposed to be a resource for enquiring workers, looking for ideas that can help those workers build for socialism?No, alan, "we are not all on the same wavelength politically or philosophically".In fact, I can honestly say that the 'theoreticians' in the SWP can give a better, more informed, historical and social account of what we're discussing, than the supposed 'democrats' of the SPGB. The SWP still spout nonsense, of course, but at least its thought-out, informed, educated nonsense. As is most of the product of bourgeois academia.The SPGB seems to consist of uneducated, ill-informed, philosopically-illiterate bluffers, who like the sound of 'democracy' and 'socialism', but haven't got a clue what they're talking about.We've even had posters say that they have never read Engels or Marx, beyond a cursory uncomprehending glance by some, never mind physics or philosophy. I seriously doubt that some read books at all – they seem to rely on word of mouth, and they've learned, years ago, to mouth the slogan "Materialism Good, Idealism Bad!". And they're sticking to their potty training and ALB as the arse-wiper, no matter how many wellread workers explain about the modern water closet, soft toilet tissue and self-cleaning.After all this, alan, I could be persuaded that I'm just unfortunate to have encountered online mostly the 'thickoes' of the SPGB, and offline the party does contain literates. I could be persuaded of this if the SPGB could produce just one – one only – who shows some recognition of the complexities of understanding the Marx-Engels relationship, and the meaning of 'scientific knowledge', and the philosophical need for "workers' democracy".But I think that I'm right to conclude that the SPGB is built upon Engels' theory of 'materialism', which existed before the SPGB was formed, and had already contaminated the 'socialist' movement by 1904. Anyone who had encountered the party and already had some understanding of the roots of Leninism (in Engels' 'materialism') would never join, and if they were open minded enough to have developed during their membership, they would have resigned.Anyway, what do you think the chances are of me accepting your warm, comradely welcome, and joining your party?
ALB wrote:I'm not. We don't want him contaminating this thread. If we must accommodate him let's try and contain him in a thread devoted to his obession of what is knowlefge. Mind you, I suppose he has his uses as a foil and punchball.And there's me treating you like a grown-up on the other thread.I suppose that the fool in you will always come out, no matter how courteously you're treated. You never fail to revert to type.You really are an unpleasant crowd in the SPGB, aren't you?You can't discuss philosophy, and so duck the challenge.Make that unpleasant and cowardly. Oh yeah, and ignorant.
ALB wrote:Since you insist, it's this (but it's a theory of science not an "ideology"):http://mailstrom.blogspot.co.uk/2007/04/joseph-dietzgen-workers-philosop… But Dietzgen argued for 'induction', that is, 'practice and theory', ALB, so his ideology was not Marx's 'theory and practice'.As I've said before, if you follow Engels in reducing all philosophy to the 'black and white', 'either/or', 'good or evil' of 'materialism' versus 'idealism', you will try to categorise me, who is not a 'materialist', as an 'idealist'.This is why you're compelled to see me as a 'Kantian'. It's the only option that fits into your ideological schema.But Marx never reduced all philosophy to this simplistic dichotomy, and I've given quotes before to show that he thought he was unifying these two strands into a third, a philosophy of 'theory and practice'.What you really need to do, ALB, is categorise yourself, first, before using this insight into trying to categorise me.Furthermore, even Engels said that they were influenced by Kant, Fichte and Hegel – and how could it be otherwise, since they were under the influence of German Idealism, as much as of Feuerbachian Materialism?
As far as I can tell, ALB, you're missing out Marx's 'theory and practice'.This is nothing to do with experience of phenomena, but the creation of our object.I think that you're making this mistake because, not being prepared to expose your own ideology, you can't understand mine.I'm not a materialist; I'm not an idealist; I'm an idealist-materialist.This can be summed up as 'theory and practice', and anyone who claims to use Marx's 'theory and practice' should be able to tell us just what their 'theory' is.That is, their political ideology, which they use to build their 'science'.
SocialistPunk wrote:LBird,For me it is your ideological thinking regarding this issue that is painfully close to the historical view that humans were at the pinnacle of creation. It allowed a minority to dominate with their humancentric logical views and religions.Placing humanities experience or consciousness squarely in the driving seat of "reality"or "truth" leads us to class divided society. It separates us from nature by declaring our reality is the only reality that is important.Science and socialism for me tells me that we are but a part of nature and as such have no special privileges to dominate and destroy as we see fit. Your creationist communism on the other hand says the collective "reality" is the ultimate "truth" and so the collective mind can never be wrong. So if the collective mind can never be wrong, the collective mind can do no wrong. Scary stuff indeed.Once again, SP, I acknowledge your ideological honesty, but what you're saying seems to be little to do with workers' power, democratic control of social production, active humanity, changing our world, or socialism.We have very different opinions of what constitutes 'socialism'.Perhaps a new thread to determine just what posters here mean by 'socialism', in the light of what's been said here?
SocialistPunk wrote:"Albert Einstein is reported to have asked his fellow physicist and friend Niels Bohr, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics, whether he realistically believed that 'the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it.' To this Bohr replied that however hard he (Einstein) may try, he would not be able to prove that it does, thus giving the entire riddle the status of a kind of an infallible conjecture—one that cannot be either proved or disproved."Don't forget, SP, neither Einstein nor Bohr were Democratic Communists, so they're not the best people for socialists to ask for epistemological advice.In fact, neither understood the issue, as the exchange you quote displays.They could not understand the philosophical issues involved. If you won't take my word, read what they actually wrote.I've some sympathy for Einstein, who at least took politics seriously, and saw himself as some sort of 'socialist', but Bohr's attempts to make sense of epistemology are simply childish and ignorant.I'd go so far to say, that reading Bohr on epistemology is comparable to reading the scrawlings of a six-year-old using a red crayon on cardboard, it's that poor.Don't be taken in by the 'physicist of genius' tag – Bohr hasn't got a clue.That's why bourgeois science is in the mess it is – none of them seem to be able to put down the mud pies and rocks, and ask political and philosophical questions.Of course, they're completely brainwashed by bourgeois science ideology – they think that they don't need to keep 'consciousness and being' together, and really have faith that they are merely 'dealing with reality as it is'.Bourgeois Buffoons.
SocialistPunk wrote:I doubt LBird and myself will ever see eye to eye on this issue as I will never accept his creationist socialism.That's fair enough conclusion, SP, but it leaves open the question of just who does create.Prior to Marx, opinion held that 'creation' was a 'divine' act, and it was precisely this belief that the Young Hegelians were arguing against.I'd argue that if you don't accept Marx's (not simply 'my') 'creationist socialism', then you'll revert to what went before, which will be either 'divine production' or 'passive materialism'.For me, these questions were settled in the 1840s, by Marx, amongst others.
ALB wrote:I don't think you realise the huge concession you have made to "materialism" with your concept of "inorganic nature" as an "externality for consciousness" that is not "isolated in the mind". The difference between your "inorganic nature" and "matter" is only a matter of terminology. You too are separating "being" ("inorganic nature") from "consciousness".No, 'matter' is a product of social theory and practice, ALB.'Inorganic nature' is an unknowable 'in itself' ingredient for active human social theory and practice.This is Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (a term which simply tries to capture the contemporary debate which Marx was engaged in).But, for Engelsist Materialists, of which I think you seem to (perhaps unknowingly) number, 'matter' is not a social product, but an 'externality to consciousness', that can be known.So, Marxists do not separate 'consciousness' from 'being', because for them 'matter' is a social product, better called 'mind-matter'. 'Inorganic nature' cannot be passively known, but can only provide an ingredient to human labour.Engelsists insist that 'matter' can be known 'as it is' (ie. outside of consciousness), and so do separate 'being' and 'consciousness'.
ALB wrote:If you want to call yourself an "inorganic naturist" that's ok as long as the definitions are clear, but personally I still prefer "materialist" despite its range of meanings.But I wouldn't call myself an 'inorganic naturalist', simply because that would separate 'consciousness' from 'being'.I would call myself (in Marx's contemporary terms) an 'idealist-materialist', or a 'social productionist', which insists that the only 'nature' we know is our product, 'organic nature'.I think that I've said many times why I think that you'd be making a mistake to continue to call yourself a 'materialist'. It leaves you open to the accusation that you accept Engels' views about 'matter', which he saw as 'existing out there' rather than as a 'social product'.In political terms, Engels actually undid Marx's work. He laid the basis for Leninist politics, with his talk of 'matter' outside of consciousness. Marx was well aware (given his background in German Idealism and philosophical training), that pretending to take 'matter' outside of consciousness was impossible, and simply let 'consciousness' in through the back door, in the shape of a 'special consciousness' as the 'active side'.This is a bourgeois ideological approach, and allows a part of society to rise above the majority, as Marx warned in his Theses on Feuerbach, which was a text at least as critical of materialism as of idealism.Finally, I've given already the emergence of this separation of being and consciousness, and it's in the reaction in 1660 to the hopes of the radicals of the English Revolution, who wanted the purpose of science to be 'to build a better world for all'.It was the bourgeoisie who introduced the reactionary science of supposedly merely 'telling the Truth of Reality'. That's impossible, but its fixity of 'nature' and the pretence that we play no part in its production, entirely suited a ruling class which was engaged in actively building its world, but wanted to hide that process, and to deny the possibility to contending classes.
ALB wrote:I think that in his confused way he may be trying to say the same as us, i.e. that there is something out there which exists independently of consciousness and that to survive in it humans, in societies, create 'mental constructs' of it which are not the same nor a mirror image of it.I must say that I welcome gratefully (not sarcasm) ALB's belated realisation that I'm actually making serious political and philosophical points in these debates.
ALB wrote:LB is using it differently to mean some part of his "inorganic nature" that humans have already isolated in their mind and which is thus already a mental construct.No, I am not arguing that 'inorganic nature' is 'isolated in the mind'.This is the reading of 'materialists', who do not recognise the Marxian concept of the 'ideal-material' (or, to re-term it, the 'socially-produced').'Materialists' separate 'ideal' and 'material' (ie. separate 'consciousness' and 'being'), and so have a fixation upon separating the 'mind' from 'matter'.What humans 'socially-produce' (by 'theory and practice') is 'mind-matter', our 'nature-for-us', our 'organic nature'. So, it's not 'inorganic nature in the mind'. That is an impossibility. Our 'the sun' is the result of social theory and practice, and is not just in the mind. It is a social product, which thus exists, and we are its creator.ALB, unless you reveal your ideology of how you're 'understanding' what I'm saying, then we will continue to have problems, and you'll continue to 'interpet' what I'm supposedly saying, rather than understanding just what I am saying (from a different ideological perspective).Clearly, I'll say that what differs between us, is our differing ideological approachs, mine being Marx's, and yours being Engels'.I hope that we can now clarify our political differences, which have epistemological and thus scientific consequences.The key issue is whether 'the sun' is socially-produced (thus we can change 'the sun') or 'the sun' is simply 'out there' as it is, fixed forever (and thus we can't change it).To pretend to talk of 'the sun' outside of our knowledge of it, is bourgeois ideology, can be located in time and within a class' reactionary interests, and leads to an inability to change our world.
Vin wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:But it hasn't been lost on anyone watching this discussion that in "answering" my question you conveniently side step the gist of my enquiry, that the sun was doing its thing long before any consciousness came into being.LBird will continue to avoid answering simple questions. He prefers to pretend that the issue is a complex one and to string long words together which when all joined up amounts to a load of bollocks
You're right, Vin, there are always 'simple' answers to 'simple' questions, and don't you let that clever bastard Marx befuddle you with talk of 'value'.Socialism is just a 'practical' task, a 'simple' process, for essentially 'simple' people.It makes one wonder why anybody actually bothers to read books, and has discussions about politics and philosophy, when everything is so 'simple'.SPGB? The Simple Party Grounded in the Bourgeoisie.
SocialistPunk wrote:I doubt if any member of this forum, or scientist, would question your statement "radiation (as human knowledge) didn't exist before human consciousness". After all how can human knowledge exist without humans. And I have no doubt that science will continue to update and change much scientific knowledge in the future.But it hasn't been lost on anyone watching this discussion that in "answering" my question you conveniently side step the gist of my enquiry, that the sun was doing its thing long before any consciousness came into being.SP, I've answered your question – you just don't like the answer.You're just following bourgeois ideology, which argues that 'knowledge of the sun' is separate from 'the sun'. The 'gist of your enquiry' is a bourgeois gist, although no doubt you regard it as simply an innocent, individual, personal question. There are none so blind as those who will not see.So when I describe the socio-historical emerge of 'knowledge of the sun', you say that's all very well, but what about 'the sun' which exists outside of 'knowledge'.For humans, we create 'knowledge of the sun', and that's it.To talk of 'the sun' outside of our 'knowledge of the sun' is meaningless. Have you never heard of Einstein's theory of relativity, and the need to acknowledge the position of the observer?When you say "the sun was doing its thing long before any consciousness came into being", how do you know this?Your only answer is that you have a special method which allows you access to 'the sun' without using your consciousness.That's fine as an answer, but it's a bourgeois answer. And I've already pointed out just when and why 'your' viewpoint emerged in society.These are philosophical issues, which have political implications, and for someone who's not really interested in politics, philosophy or science, it's perfectly acceptable to just use their 'common sense' to understand 'the sun'.For those of us, who are socialists, and are concerned to build the class consciousness of the proletariat, then these political issues have to be addressed.For those, who aren't really interested in democracy in science, or the production of 'truth', or workers' power, or class struggle in the ideology of science, or giving socio-historical accounts of human activities, then these can be ignored, and life can go on as normal under the bourgeoisie.After all, who in their right mind would argue about the sun?Any individual, using their own sight, can see the sun. And science is simply 'individual experience' writ large, isn't it?Day-to-day experience of the world tells us all we need to know, doesn't it?Right, that's 'the sun' dealt with – no need for LBird's complete bollocks!Next, value!What's the method? Ignore philosophy, including Marx's Capital (that's full of inexplicable bollocks, too, workers don't need to read that). Just use one's individual experience – well, whoever felt 'value'? No-one! Let's stick to tangible things, like the price label on a commodity. No need for all this 'science' guff, just read the price tag, if one wants to know its value! Easy-peasy!And so, the SPGB and its supporters fall back into normal life, which abhors talk of 'revolutionary science' and the philosophical need for democracy to determine what 'the sun' is.The long snooze resumes. And Marx remains either unread or glanced at uncomprehendingly. The SPGB has fought the good fight, once again, and seen off those radicals and trouble-makers, who actually read what physicists say about the problems within physics, and can actually give socio-historical accounts of 'knowledge production'.
SocialistPunk wrote:LBird,An answer to this simple, you might say child like question, may help me and others get to grips with what you are saying.If we use the sun bombarding this planet with its radiation, as an example of phenomena. Do you accept that it existed or took place before human conciousness came into existence?SP, if 'phenomena' require an active relationship between 'consciousness and being', then 'phenomena' can't exist outside of either 'consciousness' or 'being'.If you wish to separate 'being and consciousness' (a socio-historical act which I've already located in time and ruling class context), then be aware that you doing this is not your individual choice, but an ideological acceptance of a ruling class idea.Marx argues that humans labour upon something that is outside of consciousness (which he calls 'inorganic nature' or a 'material substratum'), but that 'theory and practice' (by a society, not an 'individual') is required to create our phenomena (or 'organic nature', the nature we know, or 'nature-for-us').'Radiation' exists for us as part of 'nature-for-us', and we can locate the emergence of this 'nature-for-us' in a socio-historical context.In the past, a different society could have regarded burns received from what we know call 'radiation' as 'god's breath'. But clearly, it would not be what we call 'radiation' with all the accompanying baggage of how to avoid or treat it. 'God's breath' would have been produced by a different social theory and practice, and would have been very different in its social consequences.Of course, it's possible to agree with the bourgeoisie, who say that now humans have a method which allows them to finally know 'The Truth' of all phenomena, and so once we 'discover' 'radiation' it is known forever.But the last hundred years, since Einstein's theory of relativity, have taught us that what we once thought was 'eternal truth', like Newton's theories or Euclid's geometry, are nothing of the sort. They are both socio-historical, and we can now locate their start and end as 'truth', and show which social groups produced them.The bottom line, as an answer for your reasonable question, is that 'radiation' (as human knowledge) didn't exist before human consciousness, and that we now know when it emerged, and we also know, because of developments in science, that at some point a new theory will emerge and be tried in social practice, and that 'radiation' will disappear like just like other 'scientific truths', like the 'ether' or 'phlogiston' or 'Piltdown Man', to be replaced a different concept.I know that anyone brought up in bourgeois society, under the pressure of ruling class ideas about the wonderful geniuses we have guiding us to their promised land, finds this socio-historical account of 'science' difficult to accept. We're all told from birth that 'science is objective' and that we should trust 'scientists'. But the bourgeoisie are lying to us.'Radiation' is a concept produced by humans, not a reflection of a 'phenomenon'.Whilst 'radiation' is useful to society, we'll stick with it, and use the concept to guide our actions.But to talk of an asocial, ahistoric 'radiation' which is 'True' and always will be, outside of 'consciousness', is essentially meaningless, and contrary to Marx's notions of social theory and practice, in which humans are the 'active side'.To ignore Marx is to return to notions of passive humanity, which observes and describes 'reality' as it is.That is the ideology of 'materialism'.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:I do create matter, but afterwards I usually wipe my arse and flush it away, I suggest you might do the same with the shit you produce.Oh dear.No matter how often I treat you as an adult, you revert to child-like ignorance.You could always try political and philosophical debate, but it's clearly beyond you.Try reading a book, Tim.Perhaps 'Janet and John' is about your level.
Tim Killgallon wrote:I would describe myself as a Materialist and I do not see "any talk of consciousness as idealism". That would be a ridiculous statement, not only that, I have never come across any other member of the SPGB in pushing 35 years of membership of the party state any thing of the kind. The statement is however typical of the specious arguments you put forward.So, Tim, what ideology do you employ in physics?That is what 'talk of consciousness' implies – that you will reveal your social consciousness, which you employ when you create your object.This is neither 'ridiculous' or 'specious'.I keep asking materialists to reveal their ideology, and they refuse.I then reveal their ideology, and point to the page of the pamphlet which contains its origins…… and that revelation and evidence is ignored, and I'm called an 'idealist', just as you did, earlier.You think Marx's 'theory and practice' amounts to 'theory' – you said so, earlier.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Can i mischievously suggest that we apply LBird's workers' democracy to gravity, have a democratic vote that concludes gravity does not exist and then suggest he jumps from a top of a high building to prove that science is purely ideological and gravity does not exist if we vote it doesn't… You know i'm only joking LBird…i'd miss you if you were gone…but i might be the only one it seems from the feelings of the forum.You're making a joke, alan, but it's clear from the usual contributions that no matter how many times I stress Marx's 'theory and practice', the materialists read 'theory'.They do so, because they have an ideology which tells them the knee-jerk reaction to any claims for 'consciousness', even Marx's 'theory and practice', the active relationship between consciousness and being, is to call that 'idealism'.So, they read 'theory and practice' as 'theory'.Every time.
